Explaining austerity to liberals:

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Have we seen austerity work yet?

too goofy. You act like there is clear austerity somewhere and
non austerity somewhere??

What we know is the when South America, for example, devalues a lot their economies go bankrupt in recessions and depressions. And when they have balanced budgets they have steady economic growth. Instead of liberal chaos they have stable conservative growth.

Inflation, recessions, depressions, devaluations, and general liberal irresponsibility can not help. The very idea is past absurd!!

 

[kiwiman127]

Have we seen austerity work yet?

too goofy. You act like there is clear austerity somewhere and
non austerity somewhere??

What we know is the when South America, for example, devalues a lot their economies go bankrupt in recessions and depressions. And when they have balanced budgets they have steady economic growth.

Inflation recessions depressions and general liberal irresponsibility can not help. The very idea is past absurd!!

Why not pull some kind of evidence that austerity has ever worked, or that it would work in the US?

The Crumbling Case for Austerity

The Crumbling Case for Cutting Spending to Stimulate the Economy, by Chad Stone, CBPP: Empirical support for the view that sharp, immediate cuts in government spending would be good for the U.S. economy was never strong, and it’s getting weaker.
The Economist is on the case, highlighting two new studies showing that austerity and growth don’t mix in the short term. ...
The first new study is from the International Monetary Fund. In its 2010 World Economic Outlook, the IMF put the kibosh on the idea that deficit reduction would boost economic growth in the short run. IMF researchers have now presented a revised and extended version of that analysis reaching the same conclusion.
The second new study, by Roberto Perotti, backs up those of us who have been arguing for some time that these international examples have little in common with current U.S. budget and economic conditions. What makes the Perotti study so significant is that he has been one of the leading researchers cited by advocates of sharp, immediate cuts in government spending.
Perotti conducted detailed case studies of the four largest multi-year deficit-reduction efforts that researchers have commonly regarded as spending-based. He found that they were actually much smaller, and much less tilted toward spending cuts, than previous studies had assumed.
Perotti also found that all four countries’ economies benefited from a rapid decline in interest rates and a moderation of wage growth, which in turn made domestic firms more competitive internationally; an expansion of exports was key to economic growth in three of the four cases. ...
In short, the more closely you look at the evidence for the claim that cutting federal spending dramatically right now would be good for the economy, the less convincing that claim becomes.
Interest rates are already at rock bottom, and wage growth is not a problem, so the key conditions for austerity to work -- if it ever works -- are not present in the US economy.
Economist's View: The Crumbling Case for Austerity

Even the very conservative The Economist, backed by their own studies think that the apporach at going into the austerity mode too quick and with too many cuts will kill the US economy.

Will someone correct me with facts instead of conjecture?

 

[ilia25]

There is a simple explanation why the austerity will be a disaster now:
1) Cutting spending depresses the economy (less demand for goods and services ==> less jobs)
2) That is why we should compensate any austerity measures by easing the monetary policy -- meaning Federal Reserve should be able to cut the rates and stimulate the economy that way.
3) Federal Reserve cannot cut the rates at this time -- they have slashed them to 0 during the onset of the financial crisis in the end of 2008, and they has been pushed against the zero bound since then.
4) That means we should wait until the economy improves enough for the Fed to raise the rates above at least 3% (it was 5% before the crisis started) -- and then start on cutting the deficit.

And we can afford to wait as the government can now borrow at the very low rates.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why not pull some kind of evidence that austerity has ever worked, or that it would work in the US?

that is beyond absurd. Look at the USA and Switzerland. They have had relative austerity compared to much of the world and they are the two richest. Look at Greece/Italy. They had liberalism, not austerity and the results are obvious!!

 

[ilia25]

actually state-of-the art health care, for example, trickles down to the poorest Americans without regard for their ability to pay or their ability to contribute to the innovations that got us from the stone age to here.

Yup, here is an example of trickling down:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-from-cancer/2012/01/11/gIQAV34fqP_story.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is a simple explanation why the austerity will be a disaster now:

1) Cutting spending depresses the economy (less demand for goods and services ==> less jobs)

no one is burning money so it disappears and net spending decreases. When you cut "government" waste spending you then leave the money in private hands where it can be used to create real sustainable growth.

 

[kiwiman127]

So we have S & P saying austrity isn't working and now look what Moody's has to say.

Italy Outlook: Austerity Triggers Recession
Italy Outlook: Austerity Triggers Recession

Again, another case of cutting too much too quickly.

 

[ilia25]

Why not pull some kind of evidence that austerity has ever worked, or that it would work in the US?

that is beyond absurd. Look at the USA and Switzerland. They have had relative austerity compared to much of the world and they are the two richest. Look at Greece/Italy. They had liberalism, not austerity and the results are obvious!!

Yes, look at the Europe -- it is sliding into a recession for no other reason than the austerity.

Or look at Japan -- it has twice as big debt as US.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, look at the Europe -- it is sliding into a recession for no other reason than the austerity.

dear, there is the little matter of the housing crisis which is the source of the worlds problems. Another liberal bubble will only make things worse.

Or look at Japan -- it has twice as big debt as US.

and now you know why it has suffered 2 lost decades

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again, another case of cutting too much too quickly.

again cutting government is good because private sector then has more and the private sector is the only real source of economic growth.

 

[DSGE]

What's the substantial difference between a liberal government hooked on spending and physical exercise?

Hooked implies addicted, obsessed, habitual and destructive while physical exercise implies none of that so is 100% different. See what happens when a liberal tries to think? Sorry

You are trying to change the subject because you know if you enter the debate, as a liberal, you will be crushed.

"Hooked" doesn't imply "destructive". Although you've somehow managed to focus on something irrelevant. "Liberal government hooked on..." was wording you chose to introduce for whatever reason. The important part of the conversation is "debt is like heroin" and "debt is like exercise". That's what you need to address; not semantics.

The point you seem to have missed/ignored is that your false analogy isn't helpful or interesting. It doesn't constitute any sort of rational argument. If you want to make a point about debt, make a point about debt.

By the way, I get that you don't actually know what a liberal is and anybody who doesn't agree with you is "liberal" in your mind, but I actually happen to be centrist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

actually state-of-the art health care, for example, trickles down to the poorest Americans without regard for their ability to pay or their ability to contribute to the innovations that got us from the stone age to here.

Yup, here is an example of trickling down:
Ohio parents plead guilty to denying medical care for 8-year-old son who died from cancer - The Washington Post

health care is the perfect example of trickle down, the poor get state-of-the art care that a King would not have gotten 25 years ago even
when they can't pay or contribute to the industries innovations. They are true free riders 100% dependent on saintly trickle down.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

]

"Hooked" doesn't imply "destructive".

who knew I figured hooked on heroin was for sure destructive

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you want to make a point about debt, make a point about debt.

debt to a liberal is like heroin to a junkie. The liberal imagines more of it will cure him when really it just further addicts him.

 

[DSGE]

]

"Hooked" doesn't imply "destructive".

who knew I figured hooked on heroin was for sure destructive

Yeah it's the heroin that's the destructive part. Being hooked on exercise in constructive. So once again, you have to actually show that debt is the same as heroin if you want to use the analogy. And once again, you constantly ignore this, why bother using analogy at all? It doesn't constitute rational argument? If you want to argue against debt, argue against debt.

 

[DSGE]

If you want to make a point about debt, make a point about debt.

debt to a liberal is like heroin to a junkie. The liberal imagines more of it will cure him when really it just further addicts him.

There you go again. You constantly claim that but you never justify it. It's a false analogy. Not only have you completely misrepresented liberalism, but you've also not once made an argument against debt. You're seriously failing at this.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Hooked" doesn't imply "destructive".

who knew I figured hooked on heroin was for sure destructive

"
Yeah it's the heroin that's the destructive part.

anologies may be over your head. Heroin is not destructive unless you are hooked on it. You just said hooked is not destructive???.

 

[Mr Natural]

If you want to make a point about debt, make a point about debt.

debt to a liberal is like heroin to a junkie. The liberal imagines more of it will cure him when really it just further addicts him.

You might want to mention that to St Reagan.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You might want to mention that to St Reagan.

better yet mention it to the Democrats who are 100% opposed to fiscal and monetary responsibility. Ron Paul is a Republican not a Democrat!!

 

[Mr Natural]

You might want to mention that to St Reagan.

better yet mention it to the Democrats who are 100% opposed to fiscal and monetary responsibility. Ron Paul is a Republican not a Democrat!!

And the republicans have had absolutely nothing to do with the current debt situation?